Michael I know you are the driver in this but consider the pt part of your support drive

PLEASE LEAVE OUR DEFINITION ALONE!

1) When they, largely aven, foisted that dishcloth of a flag upon asexuality, they at at least asked as many other asexual groups as they could find for involvement...currently avens pt/aven appear to be seeking to change the definition of what an asexual is based on half a dozen regular contributors on aven and not the Asexual community/communities

2) After fighting to achieve Asexual recognition for over 10 years using OUR ASEXUAL definition..a handful want to do a coka cola and change the ingredients and we all know how that worked for coke.....if you keep chopping and changing who and what we are to be more inclusive than accurate...why should others believe us and why should we believe ourselves

One other thing on this..... imagine your a young asexual trying to explain to your parents, friends, doctors etc what an Asexual is and the difficulty they would have if we keep changing it

What worries me is that hardly any of them are Asexuals...some are sexuals within in it's own term and most of the others are sexuals using the grey arena and a "vested interest" claim...very few within that thread asking for change are Asexuals

That does not mean they are not entitled to a view, they are..but let's not change everything about what an Asexual is... based on the demands of people who are not Asexual at all

For a fairer impression of what the Asexul community want...use that same thread which has been running a poll on this very same question for 18 months and 46 pages... and still the largest group voting, expressing their wishes and by nearly double of the nearest other groups are clearly saying to aven and the pt ....PLEASE LEAVE OUR DEFINITION AS IT IS AND LEAVE IT ALONE......The largest group have said this...and not half a dozen people..The largest majority in Aven are happy with our defintion..please do not ignore the substantive and very relevant majority

They want it kept as it is and for good reason

Michael...I've made it no secret I consider asexuality from birth till death and a yes or no as to wether you are or not. I personally do not believe in the grey adaption or the spectrum

I am willing to concede however that the spectrum seems to be gaining some popularity particulary amongst those ..lets say of a temporary asexual persuasion

I always try and offer a way forward on implementations and challenging poorly thought out implementations

All this silly stuff about inate, desire, partnered sex is all flimsy hoo haa and rubbish driven by sexuals with a vested interest for change for changes sake and little more

Therefore may I offer to you personally trying for a win win a different point?

Retain the current definition as the largest ASEXUAL majority within the largest online ASEXUAL community have expressed their wish to keep it

A person who does not experience sexual attraction (current ASEXUAL definition)

You can then within the Q &A that will follow, list as the first sentence which will obviosly be ...

what is sexual attraction?

And the answer could be....how you view sexual attraction depends where you feel personally you are on the asexual spectrum

That then leaves the door open for the majority to retain our trademark and universally recognised identity...whilst allowing flexibility within the definition to be more inclusive

What ever Aven does it should remind itself it does not represent all of Asexuality, Our trade mark identity is recognised and has taken over 10 years to get to that and we can expand without changing something that does not need to be changed but internally we can allow for more inclusivity

The definition must not change...there is scope however for what is written after it.

PiF wrote:currently avens pt/aven appear to be seeking to change the definition of what an asexual is

Cite?

PiF wrote:2) After fighting to achieve Asexual recognition for over 10 years using OUR ASEXUAL definition..a handful want to do a coka cola and change the ingredients

I had no idea Coca Cola tried to change. The only mystery is how people manage to drink that vile stuff in the first place. I drank a sipful once and that was "enough" for several lifetimes.

PiF wrote:Retain the current definition as the largest ASEXUAL majority within the largest online ASEXUAL community have expressed their wish to keep it

A person who does not experience sexual attraction (current ASEXUAL definition)

You can then within the Q &A that will follow, list as the first sentence which will obviosly be ...

what is sexual attraction?

And the answer could be....how you view sexual attraction depends where you feel personally you are on the asexual spectrum

That then leaves the door open for the majority to retain our trademark and universally recognised identity...whilst allowing flexibility within the definition to be more inclusive...The definition must not change...there is scope however for what is written after it.

flergalwit wrote: I had no idea Coca Cola tried to change. The only mystery is how people manage to drink that vile stuff in the first place. I drank a sipful once and that was "enough" for several lifetimes.

That little team of half or dozen or so insisting that we absolutely must have a definate definition...might be doing me a favour

I am not a fan of the grey area at all and have said it is full of faux asexuals as is a lot of aven...temporary asexuals too

but the definition has been allowed to be more inclusive than accurate

Now if this little group insist and pull it off that we have a definite definition it will overnight wipe out the grey section..as we will have an absolute "this is the law" definition rather than a vagueity that alllows grey, semi's litho's, demi's and all the other labels desperate to cling to asexuality.....it will wipe them out plus it will send the "spectrum" to the bin as you will either be yes or no asexual..none of this wishy washy in the middle or sides

In theory That means the little group insisting we change the definition ( despite them refusing to acknowledge the largest majority in the very poll they are in saying leave it alone http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/1047 ... on/page-47 ) If we allow them to win then not only will they make aven an real asexual only forum where you are like a light switch...you either are or are not.....but also the grey, intersectionality and other parts of the forum would all be closed down and moved into one large sexual ally forum....of interest given some of that little group are not asexual but grey sexuals and variants...they would be signing their own death warrant if you will , within aven

but also when someone comes in and asks...am I asexual..we will be allowed to say yes or no because our new definition will be definitive

So..if they succeed in insisting we now have a definate definitive...we lose the grey section, lose the intersectional section..move them all into sexual allies and will able to tell newbies yes or no they are and in one swipe and junk the spectrum and remove pretty much every grey/semi/demi/etc from aven

I don't see it having that effect. The definition the group are pushing for is "an asexual is someone who does not experience sexual attraction and/or has no innate desire for partnered sex." The and/or makes it easier to identify as asexual by that definition, not harder. If anything it's more inclusive not more exclusive.

Besides which, most grays do not claim to be asexual in the first place, as has been said many times before.

inate would declare there is something there...asexuals do not have something there, that is why we are asexual.

The partnered sex just makes it look like asexuals only like sex when they are doing it to themselves which is not the case and rather leaves out those asexuals who are sex positive and within a loving relationship with a sexual where sex takes part

Besides which, most grays do not claim to be asexual in the first place, as has been said many times before....I know we have had this before..my understanding is that anyone calling themselves ace means asexual..would you agree? if so how would you define someone calling themselves grey ace say in the example of

PiF wrote:inate would declare there is something there...asexuals do not have something there, that is why we are asexual.

The innate I think is there to include people who might "desire" partnered sex e.g. just to please their partner. Such people have a desire for sex but not an innate desire (according to this usage), and hence could identify as asexual by the second part of the definition.

PiF wrote:The partnered sex just makes it look like asexuals only like sex when they are doing it to themselves which is not the case and rather leaves out those asexuals who are sex positive and within a loving relationship with a sexual where sex takes part

It's and/or. So the latter could still identify as asexual by the "does not experience sexual attraction" part.

By the way, sex positive does not mean "ok with having sex" as you seem to think. It means having a positive attitude to sex. Years ago I used to identify as a sex-positive repulsed asexual who would never dream of having sex. (I'm still repulsed but now count myself as more sex-neutral than sex-positive.)

PiF wrote:Besides which, most grays do not claim to be asexual in the first place, as has been said many times before....I know we have had this before..my understanding is that anyone calling themselves ace means asexual..would you agree?

No: ace does not necessarily mean asexual.

Anyway I agree with you for the most part. I am not in favour of changing the definition. I don't find the definition they are proposing ridiculous. It's eminently defensible. However...

in my opinion whatever supposed benefits it has over the standard definition are marginal,

it's more complicated and complication is a bad thing if the benefit is low,

(you'll love this one!) the standard definition is more reflective of the way the other major sexual orientations are defined, and

changing the definition would be a colossal effort and problematic from a branding point of view as you have mentioned; while this point does not trump all overs (if something is really wrong/bad we should change it even if the change is costly and difficult) it means there has to be a *huge* demand for change... not even a simple majority would do it, I'd say more like a sustained 2/3 majority on AVEN and ideally strong support from the outside the AVEN community too. We'd also have to have most of the leading vis/ed educators and activists on board.

So it's possible one day it might happen, but I just don't see it myself.

I'm considering writing a detailed post for AVEN on why I support the standard definition, carefully countering the opposing points (or acknowledging them where appropriate but explaining why I do not consider them decisive). I'm loathe to do this at the moment as I'm not in the mood for a long back and forth on this subject, and I also don't want it to be a distraction from the front page revamp, which really has nothing to do with the definition debate.

The innate I think is there to include people who might "desire" partnered sex e.g. just to please their partner. Such people have a desire for sex but not an innate desire (according to this usage), and hence could identify as asexual by the second part of the definition.

I think that often people who do NOT do this, get it the wrong way around

they generally do not desire sex to please their partner....what they tend to do like most couples..is have a desire to please a partner of which sex is just one way of doing it...one tool in the toolbox if you will in the same way cooking for them or doing their washing as well as yours....that is not inate at all..it's bloody hard work and compromise as most relationships are

it means there has to be a *huge* demand for change... not even a simple majority would do it, I'd say more like a 2/3 majority on AVEN and ideally strong support from the outside AVEN community too.

So it's possible one day it might happen, but I just don't see it myself.

I would agree with this..the most current poll has nearly twice as many saying leave it alone as the dirty dozen group...it's just the dirty dozen are more vocal

For it to change I would see a need for aven to reach a 75% request from it's members but even then it would not be automatic as aven U.S. whilst the largest online forum...does not represent all online asexuals or all asexuals including infrequent internet asexuals

if they reached 75% then absolutely I would agree they would have amandate to approach other asexual forums including other country avens as well as other asexual forums...it might help also to approach possibly associated media bodies to advertise the fact this discussion is going on which might help with previous members and infrequent members having an input

once you have all that done then if there is a change..it can be said it would represent the will of the asexual community largely as a whole

I agree with you that one day it might happen but also probably not in my life time

PiF wrote:they generally do not desire sex to please their partner....what they tend to do like most couples..is have a desire to please a partner of which sex is just one way of doing it...one tool in the toolbox if you will in the same way cooking for them or doing their washing as well as yours....that is not inate at all..it's bloody hard work and compromise as most relationships are

Yes it's not innate for such people and that's the point: they can still identify as asexual under this definition.

PiF wrote:I agree with you that one day it might happen but also probably not in my life time

We'll have to see... (I edited some stuff into my previous post btw, probably while you were composing a reply.)

flergalwit wrote:I'm considering writing a detailed post for AVEN on why I support the standard definition, carefully countering the opposing points (or acknowledging them where appropriate but explaining why I do not consider them decisive). I'm loathe to do this at the moment as I'm not in the mood for a long back and forth on this subject, and I also don't want it to be a distraction from the front page revamp, which really has nothing to do with the definition debate.

In your thread re the front page..they have attempted to make it about something else ....so to actually get something done I can see why you would stick on course and that target is to modernise the front page....the definition debate is a seperate issue as most will recognise

The definition debate as I've mentioned had no reason to overspill into multiple parts of the forum. All of the dirty half dozen had made multiple entries in the 47 page, 18 month definition debate ( http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/1047 ... on/page-47 ) which has a poll at the top of every page which shows most do not agree with their definition request with the greatest number asking for it to be left as it is...Knowing they had failed to change the majorities mind they then took that debate into other parts of the forum in the hope to convince a new audience...because they refused to accept a genuine member poll result and most of that new audience was in fact the same audience that had said no to them

I agree with you that I would also concentrate on the front page....get that done first..then go back to the 47 page member poll for members inputs on the definition matter...although most of the voting forum seem to have already made their choices very clear....leave it alone

I see they are at it again but again are unable to see what is in front of their eyes

their whole bone of contention appears to be what was written at the beginning is not how the community views itself now and it needs to have an upto date definition

PanFicto said this....Remember, the original definitions for terms like sexual orientation and sexual attraction were designed by people based on their understanding at the time of what these things were (and without asexuality in mind). As understanding develops, so too should words and definitions to accommodate the far greater knowledge that we now have about what these things actually mean, and what ideas they are attempting to convey

I agree...we need to ask the community what they feel asexuality is now and how they want asexuality to be seen as now

what is the best way to do that? I suggest a poll offering several different definitions of which the current definition will be just one...and if the poll is current then we must accept what the membership majority decide as it will be the most recent vote on our definition for some time

so why if avens admods are doing exactly as the dirty half dozen are asking...to run a current poll for the membership to give an up to date view of asexuality both inside and outside of aven..is that wrong?? the membership have spoken how they want to see and be seen now

Simply put ..the largest group and by some country mile have said we are happy with the current definition...leave it be..stop messing

But how can this be???..the dirty half dozen keep saying It's up to us to take some autonomy back and adapt the definition to what we now know, instead of so doggedly holding onto the old, all-inclusive definition

They members have taken the autonomy back and decided they are happy as it is...it is just your little group who don't like it so have lashed out at the membership calling them blind

the membership is quite well informed...informed enough to see when a poll is made, is upto date and the majority vote is cast...that little group ignore it, refuse to accept the majority vote as substantive and worthy of the respect of the members..why have a poll if you then refuse to accept it?

So to that little group..no matter how many pages you write, how many members votes you disregard, no matter how many current polls you ignore and this poll is very current...you will change nothing

it is you that is blind and ignorant by refusing to accept the poll outcome of the members votes and as long as you think aven is just you half dozen..you will get no where fast whilst the majority see what you are doing

You wanted an upto date opinion on the definition...a poll was created......the members spoke ..... and you refused to accept the findings

PiF wrote:The partnered sex just makes it look like asexuals only like sex when they are doing it to themselves which is not the case and rather leaves out those asexuals who are sex positive and within a loving relationship with a sexual where sex takes part

It's and/or. So the latter could still identify as asexual by the "does not experience sexual attraction" part.

By the way, sex positive does not mean "ok with having sex" as you seem to think. It means having a positive attitude to sex. Years ago I used to identify as a sex-positive repulsed asexual who would never dream of having sex. (I'm still repulsed but now count myself as more sex-neutral than sex-positive.)

100% repulsed ace AND sex-positive.

Sex positive is a political movement that is so crazy important to the asexual movement that it's truly disheartening to me to see so many aces misappropriate it to mean "likes having sex" (or whatever) I saw this going around tumblr and I hoped it was just a tumblr person making a mistake, but has this really been spreading?

Sex positivity is about open communication, affirmative consent, ending rape culture, and ending the idea that anyone should ever be pressured to have sex they don't want (or that anyone should be ashamed for having mutually consensual sex they do want). That's super beneficial to the asexual community. Why aren't we making more moves to be involved in it? After I got over the venting and pain from my sexual abuse, I was always sex positive and hugely supportive of the movement because of how much good it could be for asexuals.

I think you brought up a very important point in your last sentence. Sometimes, especially when people first discover that there are other asexuals in the world and they aren't the only one, they go through a period of venting and decompressing due to all of the sexual advances and/or misunderstandings that they've had to endure up until that point. In some cases it has even been genuine sexual abuse. I've always thought that they should be given some extra slack during that period because anger over past emotional damage isn't the same thing as being anti sexual. It's one of the stages in the process of grieving and I really believe that it needs to be allowed so that healing can progress.

PiF wrote:[snip for length]You wanted an upto date opinion on the definition...a poll was created......the members spoke ..... and you refused to accept the findings

That makes it your problem, not avens.

Why on earth do people keep complaining about the definition of asexuality? People DON'T CARE. It's the one or two vocal members that make a big fucking shitstorm about it. They don't even respect the poll that OVERWHELMINGLY supports no change and act like everyone hates the definition.

Vis/ed can go down the toilet if we change the definition to "an asexual is someone who identifies as asexual"

I feel for most identifying as asexual MOST will not take the term to be definitive but a generalisation and that is why that poll has the majority of members and by a substantial majority...have chosen...I like the definition as it is, please leave it alone.

I also agree that it does not seem to be a forum issue ...but for a half dozen only who seek to turn almost every thread they can into yet another definition debate ..again ignoring avens majority

Personally I'm happy with the definition although would prefer it to be a bit more exact...I may not like it being that slack but understand others do

I also agree, and have had discussions before on here about Branding...asexuals are now identified as the definition and to change it now would cause I suspect, considerable damage not only to the brand but also our integrity as genuine.

Could excessive inclusiveness be the problem? AVEN try to not refuse anyone from saying that their asexual, a laudable premise as the last thing anyone wants is to refuse to help someone who is questioning their orientation.

I've used the car park example before..ask people to park in a field and they will park all over the place at funny angles, oversize spaces etc....paint lines so people know where to go and people are generally better at getting results through clear and concise direction and information.

I understand the "you can't say yes or no" to others...and I partially agree but you should be allowed to say something like....your description of yourself, have you thought of looking at..then list what you think..it doesn't say to those..no way are you asexual but does point them in an alternative direction

I think also the "lets include everyone under the asexual umbrella/spectrum" has largely backfired on asexuality I would have largely remained, personally, with small but with integrity than larger with no integrity

PiF wrote:I've used the car park example before..ask people to park in a field and they will park all over the place at funny angles, oversize spaces etc....paint lines so people know where to go and people are generally better at getting results through clear and concise direction and information.

And there will be people who complain that the spaces do not fit their car perfectly, how there are not enough handicapped parking etc. Then you get trucks wanting to park and force the carpark to change their lines to fit, etc.

PiF wrote:I've used the car park example before..ask people to park in a field and they will park all over the place at funny angles, oversize spaces etc....paint lines so people know where to go and people are generally better at getting results through clear and concise direction and information.

And there will be people who complain that the spaces do not fit their car perfectly, how there are not enough handicapped parking etc. Then you get trucks wanting to park and force the carpark to change their lines to fit, etc.

The irony of that.....most of those wanting to change the definition/not like parking in the lines....don't even have a car or even a driving licence